6-year-old boy dies in apparent Michigan drowning after wandering from family reunion
A boy was playing in a bounce castle at the park along with several other children when he wandered off, according to the preliminary investigation by the Michigan State Police. When his family members noticed he was missing, they began searching for him and called 911 for help.
A child and an adult discovered the boy in the river approximately 30 minutes after he had gone missing, based on reporting by the Detroit Free Press, part of the USA TODAY Network. Emergency responders performed CPR and used an automated defibrillator in an effort to revive the child before transporting him to Children's Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
"A drowning can happen quickly and quietly and is often not how it is portrayed on TV," Michigan State Police First Lt. Mike Shaw said in a written statement on Sunday, July 27. He warned that there have been multiple drownings in the state this year. "Keep a close eye on your kids and people who (can't) swim, wear life jackets when boating, and if you are a poor swimmer, and be careful with alcohol consumption."
Wandering is common for children with autism
Wandering is a common practice for children with autism, according to the nonprofit National Autism Association, which encourages that water be searched first when a child goes missing.
Last year was the deadliest year recorded for children with autism who wandered, and nearly all in that record died from drowning, according to tracking from the association. While drowning accounted for 91% of wandering deaths, 7% involved children with autism who were struck by vehicles, and 1% who died from hypothermia, the association reported.
Resources on the topic are available on the association website. The Autism Alliance of Michigan also offers a free program that connects families with resources to create safety plans.
Drowning is the leading cause of death among 1-to 4-year-olds and that risk is 160 times higher for children with autism, a 2017 study from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health found.
How to protect kids from drowning
But there are ways to help keep kids safe around water and to prevent accidental drownings.
"It doesn't have to be this way; it is entirely preventable," Adam Katchmarchi, CEO of the nonprofit National Drowning Prevention Alliance, previously told USA TODAY. "It's within every family's power to gain this information to keep their kids safer."
The National Autism Association encourages parents to consider the following guidelines to prevent drownings.
Enroll children in swimming lessons as early as possible
Install protective barriers and gear, including fencing, self-latching closing gates and pool covers
Require children to wear a life jacket on boats
Supervise your child closely without any distractions
Educate children about water safety, from safe areas to swim to avoiding riptides
Contributing: Phaedra Trethan, USA TODAY
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Boy dies in apparent drowning after wandering from family reunion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
20 minutes ago
- Medscape
Even Low Lead Exposure Can Impair Academic Outcomes in Kids
TOPLINE: Every 1-unit increase in blood lead levels in early childhood — even when below the 'safe' threshold of 3.5 µg/dL — was associated with declines in math and reading scores from grades 2 through 11, similar to those seen at higher lead levels. METHODOLOGY: Researchers used the 2021 US CDC's revision of the blood lead reference value to ≥ 3.5 μg/dL. They analyzed data from birth certificates of children born in Iowa from 1989 to 2010, academic test scores from grades 2 through 11, and blood lead testing data from 1990 to 2017. The analysis included 305,256 children (mean age at lead testing, 1.9 years; 49% girls) and nearly 1.8 million math and reading scores to calculate the national percentile rank (NPR). Primary outcomes included NPR scores across grades 2 through 11, comparing children with blood lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL with those at or above this threshold. TAKEAWAY: Overall, 37.7% of children had lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL. Among children with blood lead levels < 3.5 μg/dL, a 1-unit increase was associated with lower NPR scores in math (-0.47; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.30) and in reading (-0.38; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.20). Similarly, for lead levels at ≥ 3.5 μg/dL, every 1-unit increase was linked to a significant decline in NPR scores for math and reading. The trend of declining scores with increasing lead levels was persistent across grades 2 through 11; only the declines in reading scores for grades 10 and 11 were not statistically significant. IN PRACTICE: 'The present work provides further evidence to support that there are no safe levels of lead and that there is a need to continue to reduce or eliminate lead exposure,' the authors of the study wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by George L. Wehby, MPH, PhD, of the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa. It was published online on May 28, 2025, in JAMA Network Open. LIMITATIONS: Several laboratories used the old 5 μg/dL cutoff to quantify high lead levels. Researchers lacked data on any lead-related interventions the children may have received. DISCLOSURES: Wehby reported receiving grants from the Gates Foundation during the conduct of this study. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
20 minutes ago
- Medscape
Health Issues More Likely in Rural vs Urban Caregivers
TOPLINE: Caregivers living in rural areas reported poorer general and physical health and were more likely to smoke and have obesity than caregivers in urban areas, according to a recent analysis. METHODOLOGY: Researchers analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey to study the differences in sociodemographic characteristics, experiences, and health of caregivers in rural and urban settings. Participants were identified as unpaid caregivers if they provided regular care to a friend or family member with a health problem or disability in the past 30 days. Rurality was defined using a 2013 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme, and participants were classified as living in rural counties if they resided in micropolitan or noncore counties and living in urban counties if they resided in metro counties. A total of 44,274 unpaid caregivers (60% women) from 47 US states participated, of whom one quarter lived in rural counties. Caregiving attributes, including relationship to the care recipient, duration of caregiving, and assistance with activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, were analyzed. The well-being of caregivers was assessed through their health, health behaviors, and health-related quality of life. TAKEAWAY: Rural caregivers were more likely to have obesity (42.9% vs 37.5%; P < .0001). Rural caregivers were more likely to be current smokers (24.2% vs 15.5%; P < .0001) but less likely to be binge drinkers (12.7% vs 15.3%; P = .003) than urban caregivers. Rural caregivers were more likely than urban caregivers to report fair or poor general health (20.3% vs 17.0%; P = .0003). No significant differences were found in mental health or limited activity in the past month between rural and urban caregivers. IN PRACTICE: 'This study is extremely valuable for members of rural communities as it allows policy makers to better understand the landscape of caregiving amongst minoritized rural residents and help program developers design and implement initiatives for rural caregivers,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: The study was led by Emma Kathryn Boswell, MPH, of the University of South Carolina Rural Health Research Center at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. It was published online on June 13, 2025, in The Journal of Rural Health. LIMITATIONS: The reliance on self-reported data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System may have introduced recall and social desirability bias. The cross-sectional design limited the ability to determine cause-and-effect relationships between caregiving and health outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This research did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UnitedHealth Group Just Released More Bad News. Should You Avoid the Stock?
Key Points UnitedHealth's recent numbers showed a deep decline in profit. The company's earnings forecast for 2025 came in well below analyst expectations. The stock is trading at a significant discount and is well below where it has been in recent years. 10 stocks we like better than UnitedHealth Group › Things are going from bad to worse for UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH). Investors were already enduring a tough year in 2025, with the company facing myriad bits of bad news, including poor financial results, a change in CEO, and an investigation involving the Department of Justice. Then, the company reported its latest earnings numbers last Tuesday, and shares fell again. As of the close of trading on July 31, the stock had lost half of its value in 2025. And worst of all, it may not have bottomed out just yet. After the company's recent earnings report, which featured even more bad news, investors shouldn't be surprised to see this struggling stock fall even lower in the weeks and months ahead. Are you better off simply avoiding it, or could UnitedHealth actually make for a good contrarian investment? UnitedHealth's forecast badly missed expectations On July 29, UnitedHealth reported its latest earnings numbers, and while the business was growing, its bottom line wasn't. Revenue for the period ending June 30 totaled $111.6 billion and rose by a modest 2% from the same period last year. But what was concerning was that its earnings (the bottom line), which totaled $5.2 billion, were down a staggering 43%. A big problem for the health insurer is rising medical costs. Its medical care ratio rose from 85.1% a year ago to 89.4% this past quarter, which signifies that it's paying out a higher amount of medical expenses relative to the premiums it collects. The higher the ratio, the less profitable the company. In recent years, patients have been resuming treatments and electing to take surgeries that they put off during the earlier days of the pandemic, which has contributed to this increase. Earlier this year, the healthcare company suspended its guidance amid uncertainty around healthcare costs. But under CEO Stephen Hemsley, who took over from Andrew Witty a few months ago, it has released new guidance. The problem is, it's far below what analysts were expecting. UnitedHealth's adjusted earnings per share is projected to come in at $16 or better this year, but Wall Street was expecting $20.91 in adjusted per-share profit. Unsurprisingly, amid such a drastic shortfall, the stock proceeded to drop yet again after the news. How cheap is UnitedHealth stock right now? Shares of UnitedHealth haven't been trading this low since the COVID-19 crash of 2020. Its five-year return is now -16% before factoring in dividends. Based on analyst earnings estimates, the stock is trading at a forward price-to-earnings multiple of 13. But if analysts reduce their expectations for the stock, then that earnings multiple could end up rising. Based on the company's trailing earnings, investors are paying a multiple of around 11. The chart below shows just how extremely low that is compared to where UnitedHealth stock has traded in the past. The stock is trading at a significant discount and could potentially make for an intriguing investment option. Should you avoid UnitedHealth stock, or take a chance on it? Things look bleak for UnitedHealth's stock as the bad news just keeps coming. But if you're willing to take a contrarian position in the company, be patient, and plan to hang on for multiple years, it may not be a bad move to invest in the business today. Given how significantly discounted it is, there's a good margin of safety here for investors. Consider that the average stock on the S&P 500 trades at a price-to-earnings multiple of 25 -- UnitedHealth is nowhere near that. It could take time for the business to turn things around, but it is working on improving profitability, including exiting some Medicare Advantage markets to curb costs. And with an attractive dividend that yields more than 3% as I write this, there's plenty of incentive just to buy and wait. There's some risk with the stock, but I think the sell-off is a bit overblown. While I wouldn't expect a quick turnaround, UnitedHealth can be a good long-term stock to buy on weakness. Should you buy stock in UnitedHealth Group right now? Before you buy stock in UnitedHealth Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and UnitedHealth Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $631,505!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,103,313!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,039% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 181% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 David Jagielski has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends UnitedHealth Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. UnitedHealth Group Just Released More Bad News. Should You Avoid the Stock? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
